Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Emer


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. While there isn't any "AHA!" argument, and it is clear that many of the sources presented don't help notability, neither is there any strong statement refuting ACADEMIC or GNG as presented. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Jason Emer

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

BLP of a plastic surgeon, dermatologist and skincare brand founder who doesn’t seem notable to me. Promotional in tone, this bio has been moved to draftspace and returned to mainspace by its creator. The refs are unreliable sources, PR and pieces the subject himself has written. Mccapra (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine,  and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:NACADEMIC he would qualify. Check his research articles here. In addition, per WP:BASIC he would also qualify with numerous articles and specifically this one in Allure Magazine . @Mccapra I did a recent edit on this page, that is how I noticed this nomination. What part of the verbiage sounds promotional? If that is an issue, that can be easily fixed and not a reason for deletion. 66.207.184.34 (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * p.s. I just tried to make the intro of the article less promotional in tone and have revised it. If you see anything else that sounds promotional please specify it. 66.207.184.34 (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Him posting stuff on researchgate categorically does not show a pass of WP:NACADEMIC. Mccapra (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mccapra Check the section under "Specific criteria notes" which states: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." I would say 1012 citations is a substantial number and these citations are all from scholarly publications. 66.207.177.64 (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually 1012 citations (that is the overall total, not just for one paper) is not many in this field. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep There are already plenty citations in the article, but if more are needed, check these: TMZ, Fox News, OK Magazine,TheBluntTimes, Dermatology Times, Cosmopolitan Middle East, OK Magazine, TZR, WWD, First India, HAPPI.Outdoorsjim (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * More of the same stuff. PR and unreliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that a few of these might be unreliable, but definitely not Dermatology Times, Fox News, HAPPI and Allure magazine. OK Magazine and TMZ report on a lot of Gossip, but these stories are not gossip and should be considered reliable. 66.207.177.64 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep There are a lot of citations in the article that make it notable.Justwatchmee (talk)
 * Thanks for dropping by. Mccapra (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the proposed references, especially from more experienced editors, would be very helpful here. For some reason, editors with very little experience seem to be frequently commenting here, which while not disqualifying always raises one's eyebrows. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * KEEP, Based on WP:NACADEMIC and WP:BASIC he should qualify.Pershkoviski (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment: Most of the refs fail IS RS with SIGCOV. However in it states, "Dr. Jason Emer has been featured in numerous news articles and magazines over the years, including TMZ, Inside Edition, Entertainment Tonight, ACCESS Hollywood, The Doctors, The New York Times, PEOPLE, The Hollywood Reporter, InStyle, Cosmopolitan, Allure, Martha Stewart Living, ELLE, and Self. In addition, he was recognised as a “Top Doctor” by Los Angeles Magazine." The source here is IS RS and it lists a number of sources I didn't look up, but I assume some combination of these articles would show SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  09:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, this seems to be a tricky topic. Looking at a few of the sources mentioned above, none of them seemed to be both reliable and providing in-depth coverage of Mr Emer. Therefore it might not be safe to assume that these are qualifying sources based on what is written in the Blunt Times article. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I switched above to comment, I will look up the sources.  // Timothy :: talk  11:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have tracked down a few of these sources:
 * InStyle first article
 * InStyle second article
 * TMZ
 * Access Hollywood
 * ET
 * NY Times - behind paywall, I could not access
 * GQ
 * The Hollywood Reporter
 * Also here are new additional citations:
 * The LA Fashion
 * OK Magazine
 * Per WP:BASIC if there are not many indepth coverage, you can also combine all his coverage to show notability. Also just the fact that he has been featured on so many TV shows and publications, makes him notable.66.207.178.220 (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * There is no point in analysing the proposed references in this AfD debate (that discussion needs to go to the article's talk page) . By WP:NPROF, he's notable if his papers get cited. On this, Wikipedia is hoist with its own petard. He is quite highly cited, so he's quite notable. Some of us may be suspicious of his commercial approach to medicine, some of us may feel it's not right that medical businesses get free advertising through Wikipedia, but we have to remain even-handed in how we interpret NPROF. Promotional material unsupported by secondary sources can and should be removed, but the article itself cannot be wholly deleted. Elemimele (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep For the reasons given by User:Elemimele there doesn't seem to be a lot of point going item-by-item through the citations -- he's getting regular coverage probably because he's so self-promoting, but it's not vanity press and self-penned local magazine placement stuff. And he has a number of scholarly papers, of which 6 are at 98-170 citations. Taking User:Phil Bridger, who has taught me a thing or two about WP:NPROF, at his word that this isn't a lot for his field it's still a factor. The article is a steaming pile of WP:PROMO but that's different from notability and can be easily excised. Oblivy (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is the only AFD left open for this day (April 12) so I'll chime in.  I suspected this would be a self-promotion type article, but I'm not seeing a strong case for deletion, just maybe some improvement.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.